Saturday, November 28, 2015

Liberalism once valued the freedom of individuals

Ronald Reagan once said, "I did not leave the Democratic party, they left me."

The meaning of being a liberal has morphed over time. Liberalism once valued the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets, and limited government, drawing on the economic writings of Adam Smith.

Today's liberals have an insatiable desire to grow government.

Taking responsibility for one's actions is becoming less popular, which is at the root of the decline in conservative support. Expecting government to solve all problems is very popular, and destructive. It leads inevitably to disappointment.

Socialism, (definition: government ownership and control), is the new liberalism. Instead of listening to their incessant promises, we should simply ask where their policies have worked. Greece? Cuba? Argentina? Russia? Churchill was right, anyone over 30 who is a liberal has no brains.

Liberals do not like to deal with facts, especially when the truth hits too close for comfort. That’s why the liberals are so good at euphemistic synonyms, like “family planning” instead of “abortion”, the “Affordable Care Act” (anything but…) instead of “Obamacare”, “climate change” instead of “global warming” and the grand-daddy of them all “progressive” instead of “liberal”.

It is clear that liberals have been successful in infecting many good, decent, well-meaning people with their at times overwhelming innate and inbred sense of “guilt”.

Leave it to liberals to feel guilty about anything whether it be climate, fossil fuels, poverty, the global economy, anything Republicans or Conservatives advocate, heterosexual marriage, non-pre K education, charter schools (NYC liberal Mayor de Blasio comes to mind), cars that burn gasoline, women who could buy their own birth control, but won’t, health insurance, slavery 5,000 years ago in Egypt, and on and on and on!

In fact, it’s not such a leap that they may even feel guilty about the very existence of man, since it is so often the case that they find fault in so many of his actual accomplishments.

The burden liberals place on their own psyche would be bad enough, but they insist on spreading their collective guilt onto the psyches of others, which I guess makes it easier for them to rationalize why they feel justified in taking the fruits of another person’s labor (through “progressive”, er “liberal” taxation) to satisfy whatever their “guilt of the day” happens to be! I guess stealing doesn’t make them feel guilty or if it does, they simply create a euphemistic label to cover it up!

So, for example, “global warming” morphs into “climate change” and “abortion” changes to a less visceral “family planning”.

Conservatives would be wise not to be sucked in by this characteristic malady infecting this bunch. Start with no apologies for the truth of what you say and what you mean. As an aside to the truth-telling, you might also make a move to eliminate all of those faux methods of instilling self-esteem where it isn’t earned, like giving every kid a trophy for simply showing up! Children aren’t stupid, so stop treating them as if they are to placate your own guilt about “whatever’!

Liberals’ real fear (other than the truth) is that true achievement and the self-esteem attributable to it will lessen dependency and disenfranchise their voting base, which is the single source of their power. They need to keep their plantations full of victims. The absolutely need their votes to remain viable!

Two faced, yes. Hypocritical, but of course. Distorting facts or making them up as they go along, why not since the media or academie don’t ever call them out on it.

Using racist and sexist arguments under the guise of opposing racism and sexism, that is part of the essence of people who call themselves liberals. This is so common and going on for so long that further criticism of them is like criticizing bears for defecating in the woods.

According to the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) definitions, their behavior is best described as a narcissistic sociopath. My own favorite label is to denote them as the “SITS” -the sociopathic identity thieves. Another accurate option would be NITS-Narcissistic identity thieves.

Their positions give them far more time to sit on their seats and make up all the name calling, obfuscation and disrespectful verbal abuse than the rest of us folks who work for a living building a future for our country and our families.

Continuing to trumpet your moral superiority because you have usurped political power (building an extra trillion into baseline spending) and use (more) taxpayer money to buy (more) votes as you continue to damage millions of families in the process, is a purely political calculation and is immoral.

Five decades of welfare have taught those who care to observe that having to work to eat is an essential part of the human experience.

Conflating welfare with Medicare and Social Security is just more liberal smoke and mirrors. Given the mayhem in our 100% liberal controlled blue cities (even in otherwise red states), there is no more question that while benefiting a tiny handful of Democrat politicians, welfare, the government as parent, has been a colossal failure.

Liberals hold every world record, the gold medal, are the undisputed champions of dishonest and destructive politics. Their young supporters are told that all this must be done for the cause.

As it turns out, the liberal left’s only cause is the continuing acquisition of power and wealth for a tiny group of political leaders who drive through the wretched districts many represent, in their limousines, as quickly and infrequently as they can.

Liberals believe all problems can be solved by passing more laws, to force certain behaviors on people.

Too much greed? Ban greedy behavior, and tax the affluent to punish them.

Too much racism? Outlaw anything that even remotely looks like racism, and let the resulting lawsuits scare everyone into submission.

Unhappy with your lot in life? Teach all the children that it’s not their fault if they’re not successful.

There are no winners and no losers in the liberal’s world, except when a liberal wins an election. Then it’s a magnificent victory, a total route of the hated enemy.

If on the other hand a conservative wins the election, he must have won by vote-stealing and deception so it doesn’t count.

Hard work and individual initiative are disregarded. Why should people get up at 4am to deliver papers? That’s cruel.

Why should people have to do menial work like shining shoes or shoveling gravel? There’s more dignity to be had on welfare (and that’s a direct quote from a D.C. based civil rights group that got shoe shining banned in the city).

Margaret Thatcher said it best: “Socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money!” The problem is the same all over the world. Someone has to be working to pay for all these “free” benefits, these “free” bread and circuses that the governments offer to their citizens all over the world.

In Europe, for example, if a particular car company is having a slow year and sales are down, they are not allowed to lay off their work force. Imagine what that does to a company’s bottom line. GM of Europe is in this pickle, right now, even as we speak.

Everyone wants something for nothing, yet no one seems to realize that someone has to pay the bill. And, when the wealthy are broke from all the high taxes, who pays the tab then?

In the United States, it’s the same idiocy. President Obama thinks that the wealthy should pay more to help pay down the national debt. The way to pay down the national debt it to put the millions of Americans who are unemployed back to work. Those individuals paying their taxes will pay down the national debt.

Further, raising taxes on the wealthy does not create new jobs. If we tax Warren Buffet and Bill Gates at 90% of their annual incomes, it still doesn’t increase employment and our economy remains in the doldrums.

Raising the taxes on the wealthy is a publicity stunt more than any real basis in fact. This is another smoke and mirror tactics, not designed to solve problems, but to seek some revenge against the wealthy.

Perhaps the fundamental fallacy is that what liberals “do” is meant to “work”. As people who find ourselves at every notch right of center up to the right wall, we tend to think in terms of objectives, and measure risk and “investment” in light of what we may gain over and above what we invest, and what we may lose as against what we may win.

Liberals don’t tend to do that.

To liberals, the objective isn’t a set of targets met, such as reduced poverty, or a 35% increase in the number of African-Americans with college degrees, or unemployment at just under 5%. The liberals objective is a continuum in which those who can produce do so, and voluntarily give up their production so that the greatest number of the less productive may live as well as possible with as little effort as possible.

Liberals don’t measure societal success by the same markers we do, but by how small the delta is between the standard of living of someone who invents something wonderful and someone who’s been out of work for six months.

We’re from Mars and they’re from where? Clowncuckooland? That human beings exist for whom the other ideological side has nothing they need and nothing they want (other than not being tossed in prison) to compel them to enslave themselves voluntarily to this notion that incentives and rewards rightfully mean nothing is simply unfathomable to liberals.